PubMed · 11652814
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
CMDS issues four new ethics statements.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11652814/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
PURPOSE: To investigate differences in attitudes, preferences, and behaviors regarding end of life in terminally ill patients and their designated family caregivers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 68 African-American and white patients with stage III-B or IV lung or stage IV colon cancer and 68 patient-designated family caregivers interviewed between December 1999 and May 2001. RESULTS: White patients were more likely to have a durable power of attorney (34% v 8%, P =.01) and were more likely to have a living will (LW; 41% v 11%, P =.004) than were African-American patients. More African-American than white patients desired the use of life-sustaining measures (cardiopulmonary resusitation [CPR], mechanical ventilation, tube feeding) in their current condition (all P >.12). In a near-death condition, African-American patients were more likely than white patients to desire each of the life-sustaining measures (all P <.004). There was no patient-caregiver agreement beyond chance regarding preferences for initiation of CPR, tube feeding, or mechanical ventilation in the patient's current condition or in the near-death condition. In the near-death condition in patients without LWs, there was disagreement in 46% of patient-caregiver pairs about CPR, in 50% about mechanical ventilation, and in 43% about tube feeding. CONCLUSION: Although most patients and families endorse the primacy of the patient in decisions at end of life, the majority do not take supporting actions. Disagreements between patients and families about the use of life-sustaining measures in patients without LWs may result in patients' preferences being superseded at end of life.
BACKGROUND: Genetic databases are becoming increasingly common as a means of determining the relationship between lifestyle, environmental exposures and genetic diseases. These databases rely on large numbers of research subjects contributing their genetic material to successfully explore the genetic basis of disease. However, as all possible research questions that can be posed of the data are unknown, an unresolved ethical issue is the status of informed consent for future research uses of genetic material. DISCUSSION: In this paper, we discuss the difficulties of an informed consent model for future ineffable uses of genetic data. We argue that variations on consent, such as presumed consent, blanket consent or constructed consent fail to meet the standards required by current informed consent doctrine and are distortions of the original concept. In this paper, we propose the concept of an authorization model whereby participants in genetic data banks are able to exercise a certain amount of control over future uses of genetic data. We argue this preserves the autonomy of individuals at the same time as allowing them to give permission and discretion to researchers for certain types of research. SUMMARY: The authorization model represents a step forward in the debate about informed consent in genetic databases. The move towards an authorization model would require changes in the regulatory and legislative environments. Additionally, empirical support of the utility and acceptability of authorization is required.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.